Geneva Conventions are for uniformed army from national governments.
Where do you get that these terrorists are therefore covered by the
Geneva Conventions.
As to the Abu Ghraib photos, those were not military trials. As to the
perps there they had been removed and were having their trials set up
when the story was broadcast. The military had already publicized the
Abu Ghraib case months before Seymour Hersch wrote his articles. The
officers had been removed, the NCO's were under indictment and the case
was being handled by the military at the time the story broke. It was
the media that blew that up and caused the problems from Abu Ghraib.
You should check somewhere other than Talking Points Memo before you
mention that. As I said, those were not trials and have no basis for
even being mentioned here.
I made no mention of denying rights to citizens. I was merely
suggesting that there is no basis in the Constitution or the case law
that would suggest that foreign nationals should be granted the rights
that are granted citizens by the Constitution. Can you point to any?
It was the civilians, in particular a civilian lawyer, who was used by
this sheik to pass orders to his group in Egypt. That would not have
happened with the military. I think if that same case came before the
court now with the benefit of hindsight the results would have been
different. I also think that had more cases come to the court the
weight of judging would have been different as well. It was the luck of
the draw which case go to the SCOTUS first. The various cases in the
chute came there from different results based on whether they came from
the 9th Circuit Court or from a court that actually believed in the
Constitution.
As to your grieving, those seem like crocodile tears to me. "I grieve
that because of my political beliefs your rights to protection from
terrorists have been denied. I grieve that my AG and her staff set up
the wall that kept info from being passed between agencies. I grieve
that the administration I supported for 8 years declined to take charge
of Osama when he was offered. I grieve that the administration I
supported for 8 years declined to do anything when our embassies were
blown up. I grieve that when our troops and the ship they were on were
attacked the administration I supported for 8 years sat back and did
nothing." There's your grief. Fat lot of good it did.
On 10/06/2010 05:01 PM, nominal9 wrote:
Why do you compare military trials to medieval
trials. Are you saying that the military trials our military are
tried
under are the equivalent of The Inquisition? / dick
Something about the Abu Ghraib photos suggested it to me.....
Where do you find the basis for offering
those rights to foreign nationals on trial for terrorist acts? / dick
Geneva Conventions?.... just a whim....
After all the
ones that have been carried out were given a fair trial with good
representation. It was only that the civilian lawyers were pissed
because they lost out on getting the cases that this whole brouhaha
came
about in the first place. / dick
I think the Supreme Court had a hand in that.... there wasn't adequate
"legal" framework under the Bush Administration for militasry
tribunals for "terrorism suspects".... I think... something like
that...
What is your basis for the
trials of the Sheik who headed the first attempt to blow up the WTC
and
had much to do with the second. / dick
that was a civilian trial... wasn't it! .... you are the one
complainaing about civilian trials... you critique it....
(as an aside... as I remember, some of the FBI or other federal
prosecutors laughed or mocked the Sheik for his failure to blow up the
Towers the first time around... their "bravado" and lack of
"seriousness" seemed misplaced those sad years later... don't you
think?)
How about the treatment he dished out and caused to be
dished out to those who jumped or were blown up at the WTC. Do they
deserve any say in this case? Apparently you don't think they matter
at
all. As someone who was lucky to be going to work late that day as
opposed to having been at that site about that time on most days I
want
them to have the roughest trial possible. That could have been me
there on that day being blown up or burned up if I had not had to
stop
by to buy some hearing aid batteries and thus being late for work. /
dick
Oh... so I suppose you would extend your "denial" of equal protection
and due process to all criminals... regardless of terrorist ties,
citizenship, ethnicity or whatever......?
And by the way.... I do grieve for the fallen and commiserate with the
survivors.....I just do not think that we should do further damage to
our country and institutions... out of spite.... cut off our own
noses, as it were.
On Oct 6, 4:36 pm, dick<[email protected]> wrote:
If it is good enough to train our Navy Seals why should I complain about
using it on terrorists. Would you favor not waterboarding and then
getting hit with a terroristic attack that you could have prevented?
Just how far are you willing to go to save the country? and where do you
draw the line and why. Why do you compare military trials to medieval
trials. Are you saying that the military trials our military are tried
under are the equivalent of The Inquisition? Sure sounds like it. Do
you favor giving terrorists from foreign nations the same rights you are
denying out troops at trial? Where do you find the basis for offering
those rights to foreign nationals on trial for terrorist acts?
And back to waterboarding, do you believe San Fran Nan on not knowing
about it after attending conferences where it was discussed and she was
a participant? In fact do you believe this administration and this
Congress on waterboarding in the first place.
Back again to waterboarding, where did I even mention such a thing.
What I was talking about was that the prisoners in Gitmo should have
been tried by the military tribunals long ago and would have been had
people like you butted out and let them get on with it. After all the
ones that have been carried out were given a fair trial with good
representation. It was only that the civilian lawyers were pissed
because they lost out on getting the cases that this whole brouhaha came
about in the first place.
And back to the terrorist trials again. What is your basis for the
trials of the Sheik who headed the first attempt to blow up the WTC and
had much to do with the second. Do you feel that he has been
maltreated? How about the treatment he dished out and caused to be
dished out to those who jumped or were blown up at the WTC. Do they
deserve any say in this case? Apparently you don't think they matter at
all. As someone who was lucky to be going to work late that day as
opposed to having been at that site about that time on most days I want
them to have the roughest trial possible. That could have been me
there on that day being blown up or burned up if I had not had to stop
by to buy some hearing aid batteries and thus being late for work.
On 10/06/2010 04:18 PM, nominal9 wrote:
dick.... I ask "pointedly" and sarcastically.... Do you recommend that
we return to the medieval; practice of throwing a bound prisoner into
deep water and waiting to see if he or she floats, as a means to
determine guilt or innocence?.... oh yeah, apparently, if you are
among those "conservatives" who favor waterboarding.... you just
might....
nominal9
On Oct 6, 11:11 am, dick<[email protected]> wrote:
Looks like another judge who is making the civilian trials of terrorists
more difficult. No wonder the military wants to do its own trials.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: News Alert: Judge Bars Major Witness From Civilian Terrorism
Trial
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 10:17:07 -0400
From: NYTimes.com News Alert<[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Wed, October 06, 2010 -- 10:15 AM ET
-----
Judge Bars Major Witness From Civilian Terrorism Trial
Minutes before a major terrorism trial was about to begin, a
federal judge barred prosecutors in Manhattan on Wednesday
from using a key witness.
The government had acknowledged it learned about the witness
from the defendant, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, while he was
being interrogated while being held in a secret overseas jail
run by the C.I.A.
The ruling by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan would be a setback for
the Obama administration's goal of trying former detainees in
civilian courts because it would limit the kinds of evidence
prosecutors can introduce. It was not immediately clear if
prosecutors would appeal the ruling.
The defendant, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, was scheduled to begin
trial on Wednesday in Federal District Court on charges he
conspired in the 1998 bombings of the American Embassies in
Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The attacks,
orchestrated by Al Qaeda, killed 224 people.
Read More:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/nyregion/07ghailani.html?hp&emc=na
-----
Now get New York Times breaking news alerts sent to your mobile phone.
Sign up by texting NEWSALERTS to 698698 (NYTNYT).
-----
About This E-Mail
You received this message because you are signed up to receive breaking news
alerts from NYTimes.com.
To unsubscribe, change your e-mail address or to sign up for daily headlines
or other newsletters, go to:http://www.nytimes.com/email
NYTimes.com
620 Eighth Ave.
New York, NY 10018
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
